Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibroacoustic therapy


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Consensus is clear. Secret account 05:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Vibroacoustic therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per discussion at the Fringe Theories noticeboard, there does not appear to be much in the way of sources to support an article. Runs afoul of WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - this seems to be a minor variation on music therapy. It's not particularly clear given the general lack of reliable sources on the subject. --Salimfadhley (talk)
 * Delete. This appears to be something practiced by only a few persons. There appears to be no coverage at all of this practice in print or online media independent of the subject. In my opinion, any purported efficacy of this practice is a non-question for the purposes of this AfD discussion; the focus should be on its notability.  I see no notability whatsoever. There does not appear to be any mainstream media attention supporting the practice; there does not even appear to be any mainstream media attention paid to debunking the practice. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete - those who suggested delete are confused and have no knowledge of the subject. Enough references available to support Vibroacoustic therapy and it is not a fringe theory.--Cyrinus (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A simple question. Which of the sources you have supplied are you suggesting complies with WP:MEDRS guidelines? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and possible redirect to music therapy if multiple MEDRS compliant sources can be found. Note, there is confusing use of the term by a small New Age following who claim extraordinary health benefits for VAT. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources do not establish notability. No available MEDRS compliant sources with which to build a sound encyclopedic article; would consider redirect/merge, but available sources do not appear to even merit that much.Yobol (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment there might be enough WP:MEDRS sources to merit a short mention on Music Therapy as the little I'm able to see seems to be an outgrowth of music therapy, which is already a somewhat niche modality. I propose that any additions to music Therapy should not be conditional on the outcome of this AFD debate.--Salimfadhley (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that newer sources discussed on article talk page makes Merge/Redirect to Music Therapy now possibly viable. Would support either. Yobol (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It appears Cyrinus has a strong conflict of interest regarding the subject. See Cyrinus VIBROACOUSTIC THERAPY RESEARCH. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think so - Only a subject matter expert can write about the topic... RESEARCH... I have 4 sites...... I am a spot forex trader, information security professional and a vibroacoustic research therapist... I am not posting about my business... I am posting about vibroacoustic therapy invented by a norwegian - Olav Skille. I am contributing to the topic... It is clearly stated on my user page... I am not hiding under fake handle... -- Cyrinus (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given what's going on here, you also need to read our policies and guidelines regarding off wiki canvasing and meatpuppetry, thanks. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it is not canvasing - it is awareness to my fellow vibroacoustic therapists. It is a google plus community similar to wiki. anyone and even my dog can interpret guidelines and policies differently (even lawyers have their own interpretation of what you posted). we need wiki compliance officer Cyrinus (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So, Cyrinus, tell us again how WP:COI doesn't apply here. Evidently it does, judging from the content of your website. And your own company's website. By the way, I've been an audio engineer for over 30 years. I know that anyone selling the idea that a specific frequency resonates the same in all versions of the vast physical variety of humanity is selling snake oil. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone can be an audio engineer. There are experts and wannabes. From your narrow viewpoint scanidinavian hospitals and clinics were selling snake oil for past 30 years. Those who do nada yoga and binaural are idiots. I saw similar stupid comments when they talked about ultrasound too. In your opinion - universities on the reference list are teaching how to make snake oil uncle... Cyrinus (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference

Vibroacoustic Therapy References Abstract: Click and read the abstract
 * Contemporary Vibroacoustic Therapy Perspectives on Clinical Practice, Research, and Training - Marko Punkanen; PhD, Esa Ala-Ruona; PhD Eino Roiha Institute and University of Jyväskylä, Music Therapy Clinic for Research and Training, Jyväskylä, Finland - Marko Punkanen, Eino Roiha Institute and University of Jyväskylä, Music Therapy Clinic for Research and Training, Mesikkäkatu 7, 15610 Lahti, Finland Email: marko@nyanssi.net; Music and Medicine, July 2012; vol. 4, 3: pp. 128-135., first published on May 17, 2012.


 * Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2001). Musik och Rett syndrome - en musikterapeutisk tolkning. Unpublished Bachelor, Royal College of Music, Stockholm.


 * Bergström-Isacsson, M. (2005). Musik och Vibroakustik vid Rett syndrom, en undersökning av autonoma responser. Royal College of Music, Stockholm.


 * Bergström-Isacsson, M., Julu, P. O. O., & Witt Engerström, I. (2007). Autonomic responses to Music and Vibroacoustic Therapy in Rett Syndrome. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 16(1), 42-59.


 * Bergström-Isacsson, Märith (2011): Music and Vibroacoustic Stimulation in People with Rett Syndrome- A Neurophysiological Study. Doctoral Thesis. Aalborg University, Denmark and Rett Center, Sweden.

Here are relevant literature examples from my own library


 * Music Vibration Edited by Tony Wigram and Cheryl Dileo in 1997. Jeffrey books, 538 Covered Bridge Rd, Cherry Hill, NJ, 08034.


 * Stress- kui sümmetriline seisund. By Aili Paju and Riina Raudsik (in Estonian) ISBN 978-9985-64-358-7  Maalche Raamat.


 * Cheryl Dileo (ed) Music Therapy. International perspectives-Jeffrey Books, 5451 Downs Run, Pipersville, Pennsylvania 18947  (1993)


 * Angst, Schmertz, Musik in der Anästhesie. Herausg. R. Droun und R. Spintge. Editioner "Roche" ISBN 3-88878-009-X 1983


 * Music Medicine, ed.: Ralph Spintge and Roland Droh. MMB Music, Inc.  ISBN 0-918812-72-0  1992


 * Music in der Medizin, ed. R. Spintge , R. Droh. Springer.Verlag  ISBN 3-540-17265-3, ISBN 0-387-17265-3. 1983 and 1985


 * Schmertz und Sport. Ed: r. Spintge, R. Droh. Springer-Verlag  ISBN 0-387-18862-4.  1988


 * MusicMedicine, Volume 2, Rosalie Rebollo Pratt EdD., Ralph Spintge M.D. (eds) MMB Music. Inc. ISBN 0-918812-89-5 199


 * Olav Skille: Il suona a bassa frequenza nella terapia musicale (a cura di Silvio Luigi Feliciani & Chiara Magni)


 * ISBN 978-88-548-3603-7 Aracne Editrice  2010.


 * And- of course,- there is Tony Wigram's PhD thesis on Vibroacoustic therapy. You find it on Internet.


 * Märith Bergström-Isacsson at Rett cender also has got her PhD on VAT


 * Neuro Rehabilitation Vol 25, No.4 (2009). King, Lauren K., Almeida, Quincy J., Ahonen, H. (2009) Short term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. Neuro Rehabilitation, Vol. 25, No. 4. (2009), pp. 297-306. parkinsons-vat


 * Just another vibroacoustic research reference list independent research list


 * The Effects of Sound Wave Vibration Therapy on Motor Symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease Vibration Therapy in PD


 * Many secondary sources here.


 * Low Frequency Sound Stimualtion/Therapy


 * LFSS


 * Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed


 * King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed


 * van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed


 * Scott Jung. Study Shows That Vibroacoustic Therapy is More Than Just Noise. 2012. medGadget


 * Anjum Nayyar. Good vibrations: using sound to treat disease. 2012. University of Toronto News


 * Boyd-Brewer C, McCaffrey R.. Vibroacoustic sound therapy improves pain management and more. 2004. PubMed

--Cyrinus (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Is VAT a kind of Music Therapy?

The question at stake in an AFD is not whether VAT is fringe, but whether VAT is sufficiently notable subject. The parallel discussion at WP:FTN is concerned with whether the article is reflecting the topic in an appropriate manner.

Having reviewed the sources above, VAT would appear to be a minor variation of Music Therapy. Most of the publications listed above would appear to be music-therapy related:


 * Music and Medicine,Cyrinus
 * Music Therapy. International perspectives
 * MusicMedicine

My layman's summary is that some therapists seem to believe that the musicality of music has therapeutic value whereas other practitioners emphasize the acoustic properties of music.

I could be convinced that this subject was individually notable if we could find a single WP:MEDRS source (preferably more than one source) that identifies VAT as a distinctly separate field of study from music therapy. I was not able to identify one such source from the long-list provided by Cyrinus above.--Salimfadhley (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Re I have added 2 sources that I believe are MEDRS compliant to the article. But of course, I have frequently demonstrated a lack of understanding of MEDRS, so I could be wrong. This topic seems to be notable to me, particularly given that the WHO has weighed in on the matter.  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  17:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a completely different issue; what that link is referring to is a legitimate medical procedure that already has an article under vibroacoustic stimulation. Kolbasz (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we've already established that fetal vibracoustic stimulation is a different and unrelated practice to the subject of this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Next time I will be more careful when searching PubMed, which is how I found those reviews. Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  17:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This article should probably be deleted as nonnotable, but here's a paper in a well-respected journal that discusses vibroacoustic therapy (at least I think it does given the paper's title and abstract).  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  17:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The paper's abstract clearly identifies the topic as a "type of music therapy intervention", so I suggest a redirect to Music Therapy. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added more search terms, following this message on my talk-page. Thank you for that message Cyrinus.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * VAT is VAS not MT: Vibroacoustic Therapy (VAT) is Vibroacoustic Stimulation (VAS) - also called Physioacoustic Therapy. VAT is not Music Therapy (MT)... Music Therapy is simply a psychologist with a guitar. VAT is VAS where we use pure sound vibration on body. If VAS is not a fringe theory - VAT is not... The definition for VAS under wiki is only discussing a subset of VAS, namely Fetal Vibroacoustic Stimulation (FVAS). Try also search on Physioacoustic Therapy. I will try to add references for Physioacoustic Therapy. VAT and MT are coined because both use sound - but totally different. Compare VAT with VAS. VAT is VAS... VAS is VAT... not MT --Cyrinus (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Answer: VAT is a kind of sound therapy - not a music therapy. Some Music Therapists use VAT. VAT is VAS (Vibroacoustic Stimulation). VAS is already accepted by wiki (not a fringe theory). If you delete VAT then delete VAS too. One and the same - but VAT is not Music Therapy (musical notes, scales and beats that feels through ears vs pure sound frequencies feels through the body - in wiki example Fetal Vibroacoustic Stimulation). Hope that helps... -- Cyrinus (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The FDA has listed physioacoustic equipment as a Class One medical device and allows the claims of relief of pain, increase of blood circulation, and relaxation. -- Cyrinus (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * more references posted in my talk page... --Cyrinus (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You tell us that "VAT is VAS". If that is so, then we can Delete this article, as we already have one on the subject. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  19:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have an article on FVAS not VAS... that is another issue... -- Cyrinus (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument "We are missing an article about 'X' so I created one entitled 'Y'" just seems like a non-starter. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I created both - wiki admins deleted it and kept the wrong definition. Both X and Y... constantly trying to find excuses - fringe theory, spam, now COI... That is why the topic ended up in noticeboard... lol -- Cyrinus (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear Vibroacoustic stimulation was written by myself over 3 years ago. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 04:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To put in another way:
 * Vibroacoustic stimulation is analogous to using a thermometer to take the temperature of someone with an illness that gives them a fever.
 * Vibroacoustic therapy is analogous to claiming that using a thermometer can cure someone with illness that gives them a fever.
 * --Shirt58 (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * you are totally messed up with your analogy - measurement vs stimulation. nothing relevant to what we are talking - VAS was defined as FVAS (fetal VAS) - which is wrong. another point - if VAS is in compliant with wiki guidelines VAT must be... If VAT is a fringe theory - VAS is a fringe theory... Cyrinus (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - not MEDRS compliant. Would consider merge if sources are reliable.  Also, there is no point in even discussing vibroacoustic stimulation as it is written in this Wiki.  Any search in any database or engine will clearly demonstrate the term VAS is the medical intervention described in that article.  Cyrinus repeatedly attempted to wipe that article and replace it with this one.  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 04:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * VAS is compliant and correct because you wrote it. If VAS is a medical intervention - VAT is too. Case closed. I did not attempt to wipe out - I am adding real definition of VAS because you wrote about Fetal Vibroacoustic Stimulation as a terminology/definition for VAS. Cyrinus (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * MEDRS compliant


 * Low Frequency Sound Stimualtion/Therapy


 * LFSS


 * Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed


 * King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed


 * van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed


 * Scott Jung. Study Shows That Vibroacoustic Therapy is More Than Just Noise. 2012. medGadget


 * Anjum Nayyar. Good vibrations: using sound to treat disease. 2012. University of Toronto News


 * Boyd-Brewer C, McCaffrey R.. Vibroacoustic sound therapy improves pain management and more. 2004. PubMed

--Cyrinus (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Olav Skille's post about VAT on wiki

There seems to be some misunderstanding concerning definition: Music is defined as "auditive reception of sounds created for emotional communication" VAT is NOT intended for auditive perception. VAT is addressing the body directly without going via bonaural perception. Most critics here forget that VAT is trying to minimize auditive reception and maximise body surface reception. The original idea was this: If we relax when we hear music,- then the effect ought to be even more effective if we could access the muscles and nerves directly. The name vibroacoustic emerged because the most effective elements of music was the bass frequency, Under 30 Hx we were approaching the treshold, in which we do not perceive the vibration as a tone, and over 12o Hz we hear too well, and the vibration sensation was overridden by auditory perception. In the area between, we both hear the stimuli and feel them. Hence Vibro-acoustic. There is some confusion on Internet concerning VAM (Vibroacoustic Music = Music added bass frequencies) and VAS (Vibroacoustic Stimulation = Monotone, sinusoidal, transfer of sound to living tissue). The latest (?) development, to my knowledge, is using slim transducers for transfer of VAS signals directly to the bodt. When we use loudspeakers, there is a considerable pollution of sound in the therapy toom. When we use transducers, we do not have the energy loss we get from loudspeaker. VAT is intended to communicate directly with muscles and the nervous system. Sound leakage to the room is reduced as much as possible. So much for hardware. All research on VAT has, hitherto, been small sample reports from different sources,- from therapists with very varying professional backgrounds. No research has been done in a standardized way. and we see different "unique" equipment and sound CDs claiming to work miracles. I wish that we could join forces and agree upon some procedures that can be compared with each other. Such multicentered approach might, eventually, lead us towards a sample base that could be accepted by scientific methods. Until then, let us search for something to agree about. Maunula. 11.12.13 Olav Skille 82.181.220.105 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

-- re-posted Cyrinus (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cyrinus, could you kindly explain why you cut & pasted this block of text into this discussion? Furthermore could you explain why it is that you think this text is relevant to this page's discussion - an attempt to establish whether this topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion into Wikipedia? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * relevant explanation to the article. Cyrinus (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't appear to be WP:MEDRS, article seems promoted and conflicted. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MEDRS compliant not promoted - introduced/contributed - no conflicts.


 * Low Frequency Sound Stimualtion/Therapy


 * LFSS


 * Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed


 * King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed


 * van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed


 * Scott Jung. Study Shows That Vibroacoustic Therapy is More Than Just Noise. 2012. medGadget


 * Anjum Nayyar. Good vibrations: using sound to treat disease. 2012. University of Toronto News


 * Boyd-Brewer C, McCaffrey R.. Vibroacoustic sound therapy improves pain management and more. 2004. PubMed

--Cyrinus (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment What happened with assuming good faith? I cannot see that in this discussion... as opposed to ignorant opinions, which are numerous here. What about having open mind and investigating this case more diligently? Scraping the surface in not enough. Fizalfizal (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There are so many references given on the subject and there are no logically correct arguments here which would be against them being proper. There are many "appears" and "seems" as far as the critique of the references goes, but has anyone studied all of those references and can without any doubt discredit each and every one them in the light of WP:MEDRS? (Which are guidelines, by the way, not precise regulations.) If you say that something doesn't apply to WP:MEDRS it should be backed with well-grounded reason. "Seems" is far from it. Fizalfizal (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment There appears to be much confusion about the relationship between music therapy (MT) and vibroacoustic therapy (VAT). Maybe a simple analogy will help. Music consists of many different sounds, different frequencies changing in time, variable amplitude and so on... which is processed by brain through ears, we can compare it to the spectrum of radiation generated by Sun and its visible part (light) seen by our eyes... VAT uses vibrations characterized by specific frequencies, often one at a time, specific amplitude which enters body mainly through the skin, so it is a lot like a laser light entering through the skin (as in laser physiotherapy). So, disregarding for a moment difference in delivery ways and simplifying a bit, VAT is to MT as shooting laser beam into the skin is to sunbathing. I hope the distinction is clear. Of course, sunlight and laser light are both of the same nature (like MT and VAT), but do we say they are the same thing?

FYI I have knowledge on VAT, its principles and I use it on myself. I know user Cyrinus, who has been researching VAT for many years and I know for a fact that his intention is to just share the good stuff with people, that's why he's striving to put a proper VAT definition on wikipedia. There are so many false claims over the Internet... Good article about that on wiki could help clear many mistaken notions away. Fizalfizal (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We always welcome new editors to Wikipedia, but it is odd that your first foray into the project is to defend a colleague and vote in an AfD. Such activity only serves to add to the complaint about off-wiki canvassing.  To be honest, such inappropriate behavior taints any discussion and casts doubt on any credibility.  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 02:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Fizalfizal (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Thank you for welcoming. I want you to know that I understand it may look suspicious (so much harder for me to contribute), but I don't see why it's odd that I write about that. I assume the discussion is open to new people, right? I wouldn't lift a finger if it wasn't a case which I truly stand by and want to be developed properly. But surely there is no way I can prove it to you. So if being informed about ongoing discussion of topic that is of interest to me and then joining wikipedia community to share my input automatically discredits my opinions... well, then it's really a shame it works that way. But apart from that, the points I presented are rather specific and I think that they deserve decent response. (Please recognize that apart from the last paragraph those points aren't opinions, just logical reasoning (or knowledge), so my credibility (authority) has very little to do with them). Fizalfizal (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Redundant and not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Kolbasz (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

*Do Not Delete : It is not redundant - NEW CONTENT posted. Compliant with wiki guidelines... Cyrinus (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You only get to do that once in these discussions. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  20:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

*Do not delete The NEW content is just right. It should stay. Fizalfizal (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You only get to do that once in these discussions. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  22:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that Cyrinus appears to have unilaterally reverted the tidy-ups made over the last week or so. He's re-inserted many of the non WP:MEDRS sources that originally brought this article to our attention. The 'New Content' is just the same as the 'Old Content' before other Wikipedia editors began questioning his claims. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.